Sunday, January 06, 2008


West Hawk is discussing oil and geopolitics and asks "Could the U.S. walk away from the Persian Gulf?"

It seems as if American society has finally reached a political consensus on the urgency of energy security. December’s energy bill that President Bush signed into law contained a government mandate to sharply increase the fuel mileage requirement for new cars and light trucks sold in the country. Today, this new mandate seems uncontroversial. Yet for several decades previously its adoption was prevented by free-market arguments from the political right and opposition from Michigan-based labor unions and supporting politicians on the left. All such objections have now been swept away.
Yep. Those pesky free marketeers have been vanquished. People will have to start doing what is good for them. Unquestioned obedience to the government mandates will be required. Comply or else.

What needs to be done is the nationalization of the oil, steel, car, computer, and all other industries, plus all the citizens. But we don't have to nationalize them by ownership. It can be done by regulation. The National Socialist way.

Sound familiar? Bueller? Any one?

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values


Tom the Redhunter said...

Easy, M Simon.

Not everyone who thinks that that government should have a role in getting us off our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is a socialist who wants to nationalize everything and take away your guns.

The problem is that we are fundiing our own destruction. The Saudi Wahhabists, half the Gulf states, and Chavez' Venezuela want to destroy us. The Saudis are the worst (see Walid Phares "Future Jihad" and "The War of Ideas"). Every dollar we send to these countries ends up hurting us.

Conservatives are starting to come around to this point of view also. Like Me (Does "Tom the Redhunter" sould liberal to you?). Like Cliff May and Frank Gaffney. Like many others over at National Review like Victor Davis Hanson.

I don't know if the bill you mention here is right or not. I'm suspicious of CAFE standards also.

But I don't see the "free market" doing a damn thing to help get us off our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

M. Simon said...


Actually the government has been funding something that just may do the trick. Let me add that I have had contacts from venture capitalists on this and that they would have picked up on it if the US Navy had not. Check our "Bussard Fusion Update" to get started on current events:

Bussard Fusion Reactor
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion

It has been funded:

Bussard Fusion Reactor Funded
Bussard Fusion Update

The above reactor can burn Deuterium which is very abundant and produces lots of neutrons or it can burn a mixture of Hydrogen and abundant Boron 11 which does not.

The implication of it is that we will know in 6 to 9 months if the small reactors of that design are feasible.

If they are we could have fusion plants generating electricity in 10 years or less depending on how much we want to spend to compress the time frame. A much better investment than CO2 sequestration.

BTW Bussard is not the only thing going on in IEC. There are a few government programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory, MIT, the University of Wisconsin and at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana among others.

The Japanese and Australians also have programs.

If you want to get deeper into the technology visit:

IEC Fusion Technology blog

Start with the sidebar which has links to tutorials and other stuff.


If the development of flex fuels is so important why doesn't the government in its next purchase of vehicles offer $500 or $1,000 more a vehicle for flex fuel vehicles? No mandates, just the option of higher profits.

Once you jump start production moving the technology to other vehicle lines becomes easier.

Her Dyson said...

Well if the government is funding it, it must be viable right? I wonder if we could produce the long lived Hafnium isomer with your Bussard reactor? Some 1 kiloton "golf balls" would end our problems, you knoe. Oops -- the government already tried funding that too. As well as mind control technology. And telekinesis. And <50% success rate missile defense with no countermeasures. And crew killing aircraft. I think we're on the way to Mars just 3 weeks according to Doc Bussard!

M. Simon said...

Funding research and making mandates are two different things.

Do they teach critical thinking where you come from?

EffieU said...

Critical thinking, huh? I don't believe you know what that means. In fact, it seems odd that someone capable of thinking critically would live in an apartment and beg regularly for cash donations and free ethernet cables. I suppose if things get really bad you can always give Bill and Ella a ring.

M. Simon said...


Envy getting the better of you I see.


her EffaU said...

"Science is hard. Engineering is harder." - Michael Simon, 2008.

"Math is hard. Let's go shopping." -
Teen Talk Barbie, 1994

Brilliant minds must think alike.


M. Simon said...

Glad to see you spending so much time studying my work.

Obviously it is the best thing you could possibly do with your life.

Keep up the good work!

Joshua said...

tom the redhunter: The problem is that we are fundiing our own destruction. The Saudi Wahhabists, half the Gulf states, and Chavez' Venezuela want to destroy us. The Saudis are the worst (see Walid Phares "Future Jihad" and "The War of Ideas"). Every dollar we send to these countries ends up hurting us.

Sadly, even if America were to become energy-independent, that wouldn't hurt Chavez or the oil Islamists all that much.

Anonymous said...

I suppose I could spend $150K at the University of Chicago for a degree in Slavic languages and literature. Having that would allow me entertain my customers with a hearty "Do you want fries with that?" in Slavic. Gonna be flippin' burgers for six lifetimes to pay off that investment. Critical thinking hard at work.

M. Simon said...

Of course you would spend that much annon.

You are as dumb as rocks.

Smart people get full scholarships.